An “occupier” is a person who has sufficient degree of control over the land, structure or premises. “Land, structure or premises” include places such as highways, private residences or commercial places such as shopping malls and factories.
Under the law, the occupier has a legal duty of care to take all reasonable precautions to ensure that their property is safe for visitors who are on the premises and for whoever may be on the premises. The standard of care differs depending on whether the individual who enters the property does so by virtue of a contract, has a business interest, is an invitee, enters the premises with express/implied permission of the occupiers or is a trespasser. In the event of injuries suffered by an individual whilst being on the premises lawfully, he can claim for damages from the occupier.
We provide legal representation and advisory services in terms of liabilities, rights and remedies in the law of tort under the principle of occupier’s liability.
- Advising individuals who have suffered injuries about their rights and remedies
- Advising occupiers on their rights and remedies in situations where an accident has occurred resulting in individuals suffering injuries
- Advised and represented individuals in their claims for personal injuries suffered whilst being on the occupier’s premises
- Advised and represented a company in defending an action for causing the death of its employee at the company premises
- Advised and represented a child in a claim against the owner of a theme park for injuries suffered due to the failure of safety features in the entertainment ride
Related Articles and Updates
Prior to 29/12/06 the test for medical negligence accepted by the Courts in Malaysia was generally known as the Bolam Test or the Bolam Principle. This test was applied to determine the doctor’s standard of care in relation to the treatment and information given to the patient. However, the Federal Court on 29/12/06 in its judgment in the case of Foo Fio Na v Dr. Soo Fook Mun & Anor  1 MLJ 593 declared inter alia, that the Bolam Test is no longer applicable. The question of law which was posed for the determination of the Federal Court was whether the Bolam Test in the area of medical negligence should apply in relation to all aspects of medical negligence. The Federal Court answered the question in the negative.